Well, it took a while, but at long, long, long (long, long) last, Mickey Rourke has signed on to play Whiplash, the bad guy in Iron Man 2.

Rourke’s involvement with the Jon ‘Favs’ Favreau-directed sequel was first mooted back in January, but with rumours circulating about an initial low offer from Marvel, he never actually signed on the dotted line. Until, Trailer Man intones, now.

That offer had been put at a mere $250,000, the sort of money that Empire wouldn’t get out of bed for, quite frankly, and so we can’t blame Rourke for holding out for some extra moolah. After all, the man is now an Oscar-nominated actor – although you can bet that, had he won the Oscar for The Wrestler, his price would have gone through the roof.

However, it seems that Rourke’s commitment was never really in doubt – he had been tapped up repeatedly on the Oscar circuit by Downey Jr., and he had also been meeting with Favreau and the film’s writer, Justin Theroux to give input into his character.

And that character is interesting. When we first heard that Rourke was set to play a Russian arms dealer who becomes a thorn in Tony Stark’s increasingly boozy side, we presumed that he would be the Crimson Dynamo, an armoured foe who had, at one stage, been set to be the villain in the first Iron Man.

Turns out, though, that Rourke’s Whiplash will incorporate elements of the Crimson Dynamo’s backstory and appearance, along with elements of the comic book Whiplash, a former Stark employee who builds a costume that allows him to wield cybernetically controlled and electrically charged whips that can cause some serious damage to the Iron Man armour. Think Indiana Jones plugged into the mains and you’re on the right path.

We have to say, we’re intrigued to see where Favs is going to take this sequel, given that the first was one of the most purely enjoyable comic book movies in ages. And we’d be lying if we said that we weren’t excited about the prospect of watching Rourke and Downey – two former Hollywood bad boys turned good – duking it out on the big screen.

Filming on Iron Man 2 starts in April, with a release date set for next May.

Inject some much needed villainy in a franchise which lacked it first time round! Don't get me wrong, I thought Iron Man was one of Marvel's best efforts but Iron Monger was not a particularly satisfying villain. Which is probably the point, as the first film was more concerned with establishing Tony Stark's character. Let's just hope Favreau will grace us with a good villain this time round as well as a cool hero! More

I like the idea of Mickey Rouke as Whiplash, I loved Robert Downet Jr as Iron Man, but I can't get on board with the idea of Samuel L Jackson playing Nick Fury. I just think someone like Ray Liotta, or Kurt Russell would suit the part more. More

AHAHA, you want some salt with that foot, Snake-Eyes? s for the whole "3 star controversy" around Iron Man... what's the problem? Last I checked, 3 stars means "Good". I'd personally have given it 4 stars, but Empire's review and score was still positive at the time, and they clearly liked the film, and still do. Perhaps the film has aged well in their eyes, prompting them to be even more favourable in their discussion of the film than they were a year ago? Total Fi More

hate to break it to you Snake-Eyes but had you read the above article you would have noticed the following: "Turns out, though, that Rourke’s Whiplash will incorporate elements of the Crimson Dynamo’s backstory and appearance, along with elements of the comic book Whiplash" obviously one of the elements their borrowing from Crimson Dynamo is the fact that he is Russian. Helps to read the article mate More

L: Snake-Eyes
WHIPLASH (in the comics) wasn't Russian. Did you check your sources.... you Fucking Dolts?
rke’s Whiplash will incorporate elements of the Crimson Dynamo’s backstory and appearance, along with elements of the comic book Whiplash"
Did you read the article...you Fucking Dolt?
More

I think reviewing as a medium is hindered greatly by scores. 5 is too low a number to accurately convey somethings true worth, and a lot of people look solely at the score to save time reading the damn article. Not all reviews are perfect of course, just look at the review for Lion King on this site, worst review i've ever read, and i've read some of Paul Ross' reviews. More

I think reviewing as a medium is hindered greatly by scores. 5 is too low a number to accurately convey somethings true worth, and a lot of people look solely at the score to save time reading the damn article. Not all reviews are perfect of course, just look at the review for Lion King on this site, worst review i've ever read, and i've read some of Paul Ross' reviews. More

Ok, lets clear some stuff up. First off 3 stars is a fair review for Iron Man, even Jon Favreau admits its not a perfect film. For example had the final fight lived up to its full potential it would have been a 4 star film hands down! Second off making comic book movies to please comic book fans is, speaking as a comic book fan, impossible.While i will gladly defend both Hulk and Iron Man as movies Marvel are a comics company and were never going to achieve a 4-5 star movie first time around tha More

I think reviewing as a medium is hindered greatly by scores. 5 is too low a number to accurately convey somethings true worth, and a lot of people look solely at the score to save time reading the damn article. Not all reviews are perfect of course, just look at the review for Lion King on this site, worst review i've ever read, and i've read some of Paul Ross' reviews. More

IMO Empire's rating system is attrocious for a start. How can you use a simple "out of 5 stars" rating system for movies, they would be better off changing it to a "out of 10 type rating" and also get better people to do the reviews. I have to admit that 7 times out of ten (no pun intended) I agree with Empire's reviews BUT I am a fervent disciple of the "judge for yourself" church. That said, I agree with what people have been saying, Superman Returns should never More

Typical Empire inconsistency, there seems to be a divide between the Empire website and the Empire magazine (i.e. hyping up previous films like they are modern classics in news stories but only giving them 3 stars in the actual magazine), it's the same with Total Film. . . . More

Just because a film is an origin story, does not mean it should be viewed as an inferior movie in the franchise. Spiderman 1, is the best of the films in my opinion. It just seems that 3 stars is handed out for films that are watchable, and that far too many films seem to fall into this category, and like Empire says, "the first was one of the most purely enjoyable comic book movies in ages", surely that warrants an extra star. Even the dross that was Superman Returns got 5 stars, and More

Well a three-star review is a GOOD film for a start, plus all the problems with Iron Man were mainly down to it being the set-up "origin" story, like with X-Men 1; and X2 turned out to be one of the greatest superhero films ever. So I imagine IM2 will be an absolute stonker. More

Why do Empire continue to hype Iron Man 2 up, and hail Iron Man as one of the most enjoyable superhero movies, when they only gave it 3 stars? The review does not reflect Empire's enthusiasm for the series so far More